This semester has been a journey into the nature and issues surrounding new media, or more accurately, new digital media. Whether it is the Internet, cell phones, digital video, wired networks, or wi-fi, we have attempted to define it, its issues, and its impact on individuals and society. This has been accomplished through varied readings of the current scholars in cyber-studies. My first observation is that, as a whole, the authors have been advocates of the cyber-utopian view that digital technologies will cure the ills of society. From increased citizen participation in the democratic process to equality and social justice for under-represented ethnic and social communities, digital media, and its accompanying technologies will free the masses. With the advantage of 20/20 hindsight (may of these books were published in the late 1990s and early 2000s, ancient times in cyber-history), we have seen that this early utopian view has not come to fruition and in some cases it has actually increase the gap between information haves and have-nots.
It is this point, "access", that has been a major theme through much of the readings and the subsequent class discussions. What we have seen is that access is a multifaceted issue and not the simplistic hardware and technology issue of early Internet policy debates. Leah A. Lievrouw’s essay in Media Access (eds. Bucy & Newhagen, 2004) does an admirable job of bringing the various issues and hypothesizing about access into her model of the information environment (p. 274). It attempts to show how the various dynamics of technology and infrastructure, content, uses and gratification, relevance, individual cognitive ability, usage and non-usage, social organization and culture (among many other variables) work together—or at odds with one another—to facilitate or hinder an individuals access to new media. Simplistic in its design, the model helps to illustrate the process of information acquisition, a process that is valid regardless of the media being “new” or traditional. A point that brings me back to my often-trumpeted claim that new media is subject to the same processes, theories, issues, accolades, and faults as any communication medium—newspapers, radio, or television. A quick review of my previous blog entries shows my question of the semester, “why does it continually surprise the scholars, policy experts and the public when digital media acts like the previous mass media and not in their utopian vision?” Digital media is a tool for communication, whether its machine-to-machine, human-to-machine, or human-to-human it is still just a tool—granted a very cool tool.
However, here is where I say that maybe there is sometime different about new digital media. My professor, Lance Porter, asked more than once, “Is there something inherently different about new media?” I have usually been one of the first to say “no,” it is not different just quicker. Now though I wish to explore a different line of thought, inspired this weeks reading, Society Online (Howard & Jones, 2004), and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)—read for another course I took this semester. In his essay, Steve Jones discusses the rise of the computer networks and the “network” metaphor for almost any connected entity—“religion, science, politics, and medicine—indeed, the gamut of human and natural behaviors—can be viewed from a network perspective” (cited Barabási, p. 327). He goes on to discuss how the increase in network speeds is quickly making instantaneous communication a reality. Jones quotes Tom DeFanti, co-director of the Electronic Visualization Lab at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who envisions a time when networked immersive virtual reality devices will allow individuals located at various locations to meet at a time and a place of their choosing—a technology that creates a virtual space that is “better than being there.” The instantaneous nature of the technology is nearly already here—emails sent whenever from where ever, cell phones and sat phones that allow constant voice, text and data access from anywhere in the world, and searching and information at “your finger tips” via the Internet. It is this instantaneousness of the technology that makes me wonder what the impact will be on society.
The breaking-up of time from space, makes me wonder about unexpected consequences. What could happen if one no longer needed to go anywhere, because the technology let you be anywhere at anytime and in any time—past, present, or future? Postman cites Lewis Mumford (Technics and Civilization, 1934), that the invention of the clock [a new technology in the 14th century] had “the effect of disassociating time from human events.” It changed how people thought about time and space, and things and processes. Mumford argues that this invention, nurtured the belief of “an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences,” and diminished the role of God and nature in man’s machinery timed world. It separated man from the natural elements of sun and seasons, now we are at the cusp of further separating man now from the natural environment of “place” or location. People will not only be “disassociating” time, but also “place” from human events.
My intention here is not to be a naysayer, but to only say maybe we should think of the possible consequences of everything and anything being instantaneously available—information, data, conversation, entertainment, etc… American society loves cool new stuff with little forethought to its negative implications. Hype and marketing will never let us forget to the benefits to society this next "new thing" will bring, but little attention is paid to problems. It seems that we, as a society, have become more rude, dissatisfied, and impatient because of our current near-instantaneous technology of cell phone and email. People can initiate contact with another at a moments notice and they expect near instantaneous reply, regardless of the other persons situation. If people get instant gratification in the digital world, how will they deal will the “mañana” reality of the physical world? What will come next?
Postman suggests that each new medium brought with it new and unexpected consequences to human thought and behavior. Speech brought rhetorical conversation, print allowed more thoughtful and deliberate discourse, and television trivialized ideas, so only time will tell what impact to thought, and discourse new digital technologies will bring to or have on society. As an optimist, I believe time, innovation, unexpected uses (popular culture), market competition, and unpredictable humans (resistant communities) will moderate or solve the problems, difficulties, and quarks presented by new media, just as they have with all previous media.
Person note: When I signed up for this class I thought, "great a new media course for my first semester, I can have an easy course in my comfort zone." I was wrong, this course has allowed me and forced me to challenge, explore, and probe my preconceived notions of new media. I suspect, like many in the class, I though of new media in turns of technology, design, hardware, and economics. This class has opened my eyes to a new field of inquiry, critical cultural studies. More than any other graduate (masters) course I have taken in the past, this class has expanded my vision to further my scholarship of exploring new media, political communication and its impacts.
Thought Paper: November 15
Kathryn Montgomery’s Generation Digital (2007) is a walk down memory-lane. It is amazing that the events of less than ten years ago are now footnotes in the history of digital media. How relevant is discussing Bolt.com as a social networking model when now Facebook and MySpace dominate the cyberscape, and even at the time, teens preferred the chat rooms and IM'ing on AOL? Even the competition was not the total demise for Bolt.com, video and music sharing actually killed them (copyright infringement). How relevant is it to consider all children in this discourse, pre-teens (Barbie.com) to nearly 18-somethings (Rock the Vote). As a society, the nearly-adults have always been given more freedom—working, driving, and more freedom to make personal choices—and pre-teens and early teens have always been more protected and afforded less personal freedom. Why would or should their freedom of action be different in the Internet environment? In the offline world of television, marketing companies, advertising companies, and product producers (toys, cereal, or tobacco) have been restricted on what they can promote to children, why should companies be granted unrestricted access just because it is the new digital world. Of course, big business wanted to keep the Internet unregulated, they saw dollars—huge amounts of dollars—from this un-exploited kid market, but society has always restricted their access to kids. Just because the technology is new and different, does not change the concept of society protecting children.
I tend to err on the side of “freedoms” and less regulation, but in hindsight, COPPA seems to have done more good than harm. Now companies seem to be erring on the side of caution for fear of penalties or further government oversight or legislation. One could even argue that other forces, such as the Internet-bubble burst of the late 1990s and music industry lawsuits over kid website’s p2p capabilities, have dampened the enthusiasm to develop and operate kid-oriented sites. Is COPPA the best legislation to protect children—the vulnerable pre-teens and early teens—and still allow the free movement of information and ideas? Probably not, but for now it works. Moreover, with everything dealing with digital media, COPPA will soon be irrelevant, as technology and usage will leave it behind. I disagree with Montgomery, this new digital age is not redefining childhood; it is redefining our concept of regulation. Regulation involving digital media should not be ironclad legislation—once it is enacted, it is nearly impossible to change—but should be time-limited acts that are designed to be debated from time-to-time to enable the regulations to keep pace with technology and usage.
On a personal note, I have found this book to be the most uninteresting, what’s-the-point book we have had to read—history without insight or worse, out-of-date and irrelevant insight. Business—targeting products to kids, mining personal and private family information from children and children's unrestricted access to porn—are bad, regulations to protect children—COPPA—are appropriate, and parents using measures to impede the viewing of “harmful” content—talking with their kids about the Internet, and using NetNanny or CyberPatrol—are good. If parents (of course, I have no children) took a more active roll in monitoring their children’s digital activities and established guideline of appropriate disclosure and participation much of the “harm to children” debate would be moot. Unfortunately, as in the offline world, many parents want society to be responsible for bring up their children.
I tend to err on the side of “freedoms” and less regulation, but in hindsight, COPPA seems to have done more good than harm. Now companies seem to be erring on the side of caution for fear of penalties or further government oversight or legislation. One could even argue that other forces, such as the Internet-bubble burst of the late 1990s and music industry lawsuits over kid website’s p2p capabilities, have dampened the enthusiasm to develop and operate kid-oriented sites. Is COPPA the best legislation to protect children—the vulnerable pre-teens and early teens—and still allow the free movement of information and ideas? Probably not, but for now it works. Moreover, with everything dealing with digital media, COPPA will soon be irrelevant, as technology and usage will leave it behind. I disagree with Montgomery, this new digital age is not redefining childhood; it is redefining our concept of regulation. Regulation involving digital media should not be ironclad legislation—once it is enacted, it is nearly impossible to change—but should be time-limited acts that are designed to be debated from time-to-time to enable the regulations to keep pace with technology and usage.
On a personal note, I have found this book to be the most uninteresting, what’s-the-point book we have had to read—history without insight or worse, out-of-date and irrelevant insight. Business—targeting products to kids, mining personal and private family information from children and children's unrestricted access to porn—are bad, regulations to protect children—COPPA—are appropriate, and parents using measures to impede the viewing of “harmful” content—talking with their kids about the Internet, and using NetNanny or CyberPatrol—are good. If parents (of course, I have no children) took a more active roll in monitoring their children’s digital activities and established guideline of appropriate disclosure and participation much of the “harm to children” debate would be moot. Unfortunately, as in the offline world, many parents want society to be responsible for bring up their children.
Thought Paper: November 8
Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture is an interesting presentation on “the nature and future of creativity” in a digital age. Although the book is about intellectual property, the point seems to be that Congress has been corrupted by the powerful (big media concerns) and that we live in a litigious society (hundred thousand dollar lawsuits against twelve year old girls). It is a situation where the threat of litigation acts more effectively that the actual regulations that govern society’s activities. It is an environment that rewards “deep pockets” and corporate agendas, regardless of the truth or righteousness of the cause.
He studies how the use of copyright’s ever expanding legislation and aggressive litigation by corporations to unilaterally protect copyrighted material has created a tyrannical environment that threatens to destroy free and creative culture. Lessig argues that Congress has overstepped its authority by continuing the extend copyright term limits—now at life plus 70 years for creators or 95 years for corporate ownership. These extensions renders moot the public domain of non-copyrighted material that can be expanded upon to create new culture—for the most part only material produced prior to 1923 is part of the public domain. I find this argument a bit flawed; Lessig gives examples of old out-of-publication books that can not be made into movies, music that can not be sampled to create new musical pieces, and out-of-circulation films without commercial value that sit and rot in movie canisters, but he ignores the artists, filmmakers, authors and musicians that constantly creating new creative content. I am not suggesting that these are good situations, but Lessig is oversimplifying the situation.
On litigation, he almost pardons the actions of the RIAA and MPAA in their vigorous litigations against average citizens and corporate infringers. He says that of course older companies will attempt to stop new competitors from gaining a foothold in their industry, it is their right and duty to do so. It is Congress’ corruptibility to corporate power and money that has created overly protectionist, knee-jerk copyright legislation. In addition, it is the politicization of the judiciary (he recently lost a Supreme Court decision, Eldred vs. Ashcroft—this book almost seems like a rant about that fact) and that is allowing the continued threat free culture. I find it odd that Lessig—he teaches Constitutional law at Stanford—was naive enough to think that politics do not affect legal decisions, even Supreme Court decisions.
A couple of other things begin to come to mind:
Lessig does offer a couple of solutions to what he perceives as the problem of over regulation of copyrights and the diminishing public domain. First, he suggests a reinstatement of registering and renewing copyright protect, in this way, only product with immediate commercial value would remain protected, and the rest would revert to public domain status. The second solution is Creative Commons; it is a pseudo-public domain where the creator allows various fair uses of their creative property. The first will take political will (doubtful) and the second is a personal initiative (if the artist cares).
I have taken a bit of a cynical view of Lessig's work, not because I do not agree with Lessig, I actually do for the most part. I buy into the idea that the big bad corporation will use its power, money and influence to affect legislation, that Congress will find the pro business-as-usual protect us from the big, dark digital unknown an attractive argument (campaign donations welcome) and the courts will rule based of political and commercial concerns (who really cares what the Constitution actually says). I agree with Lessig that the copyright, as it now stands, protects large commercial interests (Mickey Mouses of the world) without regard to the actual artist or the consequences of the over-reaching regulations. I agree that digital technologies have radically changing the old status-quot of the entertainment industry, but market conditions, not protectionist legislation should sort out the playing field. I just think that, even with the regulatory and legal obstacles, the new and innovative uses of the digital technology by the creator of creative products will out pace the tactics of big brother (corporate and governmental).
He studies how the use of copyright’s ever expanding legislation and aggressive litigation by corporations to unilaterally protect copyrighted material has created a tyrannical environment that threatens to destroy free and creative culture. Lessig argues that Congress has overstepped its authority by continuing the extend copyright term limits—now at life plus 70 years for creators or 95 years for corporate ownership. These extensions renders moot the public domain of non-copyrighted material that can be expanded upon to create new culture—for the most part only material produced prior to 1923 is part of the public domain. I find this argument a bit flawed; Lessig gives examples of old out-of-publication books that can not be made into movies, music that can not be sampled to create new musical pieces, and out-of-circulation films without commercial value that sit and rot in movie canisters, but he ignores the artists, filmmakers, authors and musicians that constantly creating new creative content. I am not suggesting that these are good situations, but Lessig is oversimplifying the situation.
On litigation, he almost pardons the actions of the RIAA and MPAA in their vigorous litigations against average citizens and corporate infringers. He says that of course older companies will attempt to stop new competitors from gaining a foothold in their industry, it is their right and duty to do so. It is Congress’ corruptibility to corporate power and money that has created overly protectionist, knee-jerk copyright legislation. In addition, it is the politicization of the judiciary (he recently lost a Supreme Court decision, Eldred vs. Ashcroft—this book almost seems like a rant about that fact) and that is allowing the continued threat free culture. I find it odd that Lessig—he teaches Constitutional law at Stanford—was naive enough to think that politics do not affect legal decisions, even Supreme Court decisions.
A couple of other things begin to come to mind:
- Lessig is not just pointing out the problems with creative or intellectual property, but he is railing against societal problems regardless of technology or creative product.
- I wonder if the digital technology that caused the music industry to promote the protectionist legislation, will in fact render that “threat to free culture” a moot point. Has not the model of musicians self-publishing via the Internet (Radiohead), begun to circumvent the strangle hold the RIAA has on the music industry. Even with the draconian regulations of copyright and technology, is it not possible that the market will fix itself?
Lessig does offer a couple of solutions to what he perceives as the problem of over regulation of copyrights and the diminishing public domain. First, he suggests a reinstatement of registering and renewing copyright protect, in this way, only product with immediate commercial value would remain protected, and the rest would revert to public domain status. The second solution is Creative Commons; it is a pseudo-public domain where the creator allows various fair uses of their creative property. The first will take political will (doubtful) and the second is a personal initiative (if the artist cares).
I have taken a bit of a cynical view of Lessig's work, not because I do not agree with Lessig, I actually do for the most part. I buy into the idea that the big bad corporation will use its power, money and influence to affect legislation, that Congress will find the pro business-as-usual protect us from the big, dark digital unknown an attractive argument (campaign donations welcome) and the courts will rule based of political and commercial concerns (who really cares what the Constitution actually says). I agree with Lessig that the copyright, as it now stands, protects large commercial interests (Mickey Mouses of the world) without regard to the actual artist or the consequences of the over-reaching regulations. I agree that digital technologies have radically changing the old status-quot of the entertainment industry, but market conditions, not protectionist legislation should sort out the playing field. I just think that, even with the regulatory and legal obstacles, the new and innovative uses of the digital technology by the creator of creative products will out pace the tactics of big brother (corporate and governmental).
Thought Paper: November 1
I like Henry Jenkins’ explanation of convergence, in his book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, as “a word that manages to describe technological, industrial, cultural, and social changes…” I especially like that he does not implicitly link convergence with technological advance, though he does not stray too far from the “new technology’ fold. What he has done is open the door to view convergence from a social, humanist, or communication perspective. I have the feeling that he would be comfortable in Boorstin’s discussion of the “fluidity of existence”, the process in which a printed book becomes a movie, the movie is broadcast on television, the movie’s soundtrack becomes a record album, and the album is broadcast over the radio. Though unlike Boorstin, Jenkins would not lament the occurrence, but except it as a natural evolution of technologies and communication needs. Jenkins states, “Convergence does not depend on any specific delivery mechanism. Rather…a move from media-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels…”
It is the clash of cultures—corporate and public—that hold the key to understanding convergence culture. The same-old-content-over-new-and-different-technology-channels discussion will never be able to fully explore convergence. Only when you examine the point of resistance between the media elite and the public, will the true potential of convergence be realized. The example of Gore’s Current television network could be a great case study to examine this New Media clash of resistant communities in the model of Don Mitchell’s (youth culture redefining the mall space), Stuart Hall’s (individuals as producers and consumers of culture) and Mikhail Bakhtin’s (Rabelais and His World—carnival) work. Will the participatory public accept the wealth white guy’s “alternative” media network? Moreover, if they do, will “corporate media” co-opt them and their product?
It will be at the point of resistance between corporate commercial interests and the mass' desires where the public will decide how they will best utilize the more-accessible media content and information. It will be this struggle between the public—using the technology in new and inventive ways—and the media/corporate/government elite—dictating a commercialized top-down usage scheme—that will reveal the future of convergence. As Jenkins stated, convergence is the “…ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture.” More than old and new media colliding as the title suggests, it will be the age-old colliding of popular culture and elitist culture that defines Convergence Culture.
Although I feel Jenkins at times falls into the Cyber-utopia trap—from new technology will dawn a glorious new participatory democracy—he does posits some interesting ideas. His acceptance of social and cultural dynamics at play within the discourse of technological convergence is refreshing. In addition, his questioning and critic of Gore’s business model for Current and its alleged purpose of “democratizing” television, is thoughtful and worthy of additional research.
It is the clash of cultures—corporate and public—that hold the key to understanding convergence culture. The same-old-content-over-new-and-different-technology-channels discussion will never be able to fully explore convergence. Only when you examine the point of resistance between the media elite and the public, will the true potential of convergence be realized. The example of Gore’s Current television network could be a great case study to examine this New Media clash of resistant communities in the model of Don Mitchell’s (youth culture redefining the mall space), Stuart Hall’s (individuals as producers and consumers of culture) and Mikhail Bakhtin’s (Rabelais and His World—carnival) work. Will the participatory public accept the wealth white guy’s “alternative” media network? Moreover, if they do, will “corporate media” co-opt them and their product?
It will be at the point of resistance between corporate commercial interests and the mass' desires where the public will decide how they will best utilize the more-accessible media content and information. It will be this struggle between the public—using the technology in new and inventive ways—and the media/corporate/government elite—dictating a commercialized top-down usage scheme—that will reveal the future of convergence. As Jenkins stated, convergence is the “…ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture.” More than old and new media colliding as the title suggests, it will be the age-old colliding of popular culture and elitist culture that defines Convergence Culture.
Although I feel Jenkins at times falls into the Cyber-utopia trap—from new technology will dawn a glorious new participatory democracy—he does posits some interesting ideas. His acceptance of social and cultural dynamics at play within the discourse of technological convergence is refreshing. In addition, his questioning and critic of Gore’s business model for Current and its alleged purpose of “democratizing” television, is thoughtful and worthy of additional research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)